AtmanIsBrahman

I want to address a simple problem with this post, having to do with the language we use on this forum and Leo uses in his work. The word I want to focus on is “belief.” There are two ways in which the word is used, and conflating them becomes problematic. 1. Layman’s definition- trusting that something is true without evidence/justification/direct experience (substitute in whatever fits your epistemology) 2. Philosophical definition- to think/hold that something is true The problem is that we use the word belief to refer to the layman’s definition exclusively, leaving no room for the philosophical definition. Using the word “belief” is treated as a revelation that the person using it has a poor epistemology. The layman’s definition is fine when we’re talking about religion or limiting beliefs, but for more serious intellectual topics there ends up being no proper word. If we want to say “Leo thinks X is true about politics,” we are forced to say “Leo has X political awakening” or “X political insights.” The problem is those terms come loaded with a lot of baggage—such as that what Leo is saying is true. We could use other words like “think” or “hold-to-be-true,” but they would be clunky or imprecise. I suggest we bite the bullet and use the word “belief.” I know that part of the reason for using the word “belief” in the standard way is the distinction between direct experience and concept. But consider this example— when someone awakens, before they didn’t hold-to-be-true that God exists, but now they do. We can just call this belief. Yes, what they hold to be true exists in an entirely different context than before, but they still hold it to be true. This all comes down to the inability of language to grasp ultimate reality, but we can still be careful with how we use language. Using the word "belief" correctly is one attempt to do so.

I’m asking this because I have sober awakenings about every 3 weeks (give or take)—usually induced by thinking about reality or nothing at all. I’m trying to get a sense of how common this is, and how it relates to others’ experiences.

Are philosophers who existed before science also science-brained then? Take Aristotle as an example. He existed before science (I guess you could argue he kind of invented it). The correct label for him is rationalist. I think what you're really critiquing is rationalism, not science.

Harry Mack is probably the best freestyle rapper alive. He practiced the skill from a young age and eventually monetized through YouTube. You can tell that he actually loves what he’s doing, and he brings joy to audiences whenever he freestyles. A couple lessons stand out to me. First, pick a unique skill to master so that your competition is smaller. Harry Mack’s chosen skill, freestyling, is pretty unique because few people do it and even fewer actually train it. The people who freestyle generally do it for fun because they like rap and don’t methodically practice it like he does. This makes it easier for Harry Mack to be one of, if not the, best at his skill. You also have to find a skill that people care about. Freestyle rapping is almost universally liked as it’s great showmanship. The low competition and universal appeal of Harry Mack’s skill is a recipe for success. Second, develop mastery. This is pretty obvious, but it’s clear that he wouldn’t have become so great at freestyling if not for his many years of deliberate practice. Once you pick your skill, you have to actually work on it. If you care about it enough, it becomes a labor of love.

What is your experience like? I know you claim to have realized everything Leo talks about. I’m earlier on in my path.

@Leo Gura I’m curious why you direct criticism at scientists and not academic philosophers. It’s pretty easy to see the limitations of scientists when debating philosophical issues, and I think most academic philosophers can see this too (although obviously they aren’t God-realized). Why not criticize academic philosophy, which actually attempts to solve philosophical issues? Criticizing scientists is like boxing against a toddler—at least box against a teenager if you have to box below your weight class.

Why do you choose to use the word God instead of Absolute? Both words seem accurate to me. The downside is that “absolute” is more syllables and sounds presumptuous and intellectual. Aside from that though, it does avoid the religious connotations of the word God.

The old style feels more weighty. The new ones feel like a novel.

I’m also contemplating this. The complication is that it’s simultaneously a language issue and something having to do with the actual substance of “belief.” I might come back to the thread if I think of something.

Sorry, don’t buy it. Godliness could easily mean a state of consciousness, way of life, no self realization… who knows. Why assume it’s the same thing as God?

The video only confirms that Osho is attacking a strawman. He tries to differentiate his view from atheism by claiming he’s not a materialist. That differentiates his overall worldview from other atheists, but doesn’t really change his position on God. Then he says that God is not a person, which is a strawman of God. Only uneducated people and evangelical Christians think God is a person. I think the takeaway is that most gurus just aren’t profound philosophers. That’s why there’s more to this work than just pursuing mystical states—understanding self-deception and bias, burning through karma, deconstructing rationality and science, and learning spiral dynamics, to name a few.

Are you going to cover this topic? It seems like your thoughts on morality have changed from a few years ago. Because if absolute Good does affect your behavior, doesn’t that mean morality isn’t actually a complete construct?

It seems like you guys are misinterpreting me. I’m aware of the whole belief vs direct experience thing. But I don’t think it’s as much of a hard-and-fast distinction as many of you think. Keep in mind, by belief I just mean what you consider true about the world. Regardless of how spiritually advanced you are, you have beliefs about politics, predictions of the future, etc. We need to have the vocabulary to talk about these things, rather than considering anything that’s not direct experience a definition (1) belief.

It seems like you’re implying that truly knowing something is different from having to “think” or “hold” it. I get what you mean when it comes to mystical experience. But still—you can self-deceive with mystical experiences. And for more everyday topics like personal development or politics, you do have to believe (keep in mind I’m using definition 2). I’m just making the simple point that you should have a word to say that you think (believe) something is true.

This video would be a follow-up to the video An Intro to Serious Philosophy - Top Advice for Philosophers. It could even become a video series. The idea is to deconstruct academic philosophy—the history, the methods, and everything. This would close the loop of the Deconstructing Rationalism series, which was more focused on science, but doesn’t touch on the limitations of academic philosophy as much. Of course, the two disciplines are related, especially in modern times where analytic philosophy is prevalent, but they aren’t identical. This video would be important because there are basically three knowledge sources humans flock to: religion, science, and philosophy. There is already a lot of content explaining what is wrong with religion. The series Deconstructing the Myth of Science and Deconstructing Rationality do the job of showing the limitations of science. But philosophy gets little coverage on the channel, which is surprising because it’s probably considered the most legitimate source of knowledge by serious intellectually-minded people. A new philosophy video or series would fix that gap in actualized.org content. The goal would be to show that actualized.org is a better body of “knowledge” (whatever that means) than academic philosophy. This could include going through the most famous philosophers of all time (such as Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kant, Hume, Camus, Nietzsche, etc.) and explaining what they get right and where they go wrong. Then there could also be a portion explaining the different philosophical schools of thought that exist in the modern day and where they each go wrong. This could include going over the continental/analytic divide or delving into certain problems in the philosophical literature and explaining what the answer to the problem is or how it is misguided in some way. This video would be perfect for someone who is intellectual and deeply cares about truth, and doesn’t care about practical stuff, but wonders: “Why should I listen to actualized.org when there is a whole body of philosophical work I can draw from? Why should actualized.org be better?” @Leo Gura

These are some of the most underrated in my opinion I also made a thread related to this, if you’re interested

Let’s not give that video views. The logic is childish: Leo has a lot of posts, so he dominates the conversation. Meanwhile many other members have 10k+ posts. There are reasons to consider this forum an echo chamber, but that’s not one of them.

@Leo Gura in many of the clips, you seem to be speaking as if morality is objective (e.g. #355 and #356). How do you reconcile this with morality being relative? This viewpoint seems to buy into human concepts of good and distract from awakening. Is it just a dichotomy where morality is illusory on the absolute level but real on the human level? I know that you think Good exists as an absolute too, so that complicates the picture even more. It’s just strange to me how the same person can say “when I die, the universe dies with me” and talk about doing good for people in a common-sense way.

It’s not because of solipsism specifically that I think you’re stuck in rationalism; it’s from your overall mode of argumentation and thinking. Your arguments are riddled with scientific/academic philosophical norms and standards. But maybe the people you’re communicating with don’t share the same paradigm. Of course you think they’re brainwashed, but it could be the other way around too—this finger-pointing game of “you’re brainwashed” or “you’re a Leo minion” doesn’t lead anywhere. It’s really just an ego game. There is a possibility that you can step outside of rationalism as a paradigm and start truth-seeking afresh. You still have rationalism in your toolbox but can now go beyond it.

I didn't miss what you said. My point is that the specific contents of the dream aren't accounted for in any paradigm. You've repeatedly failed to understand this. There's a difference between content and structure, or we could say content and context. Solipsism recontextualizes everything as being your mind, but doesn't change anything else. Your list of things that aren't explained are all red herrings. I never claimed most of these things. I never said epistemic certainty was my standard, but just to humor you... One way one might know that solipsism is true is if the existence of multiple consciousnesses is impossible. Right now, try to imagine two consciousnesses happening at the same time, as vividly as possible. The concept doesn't make sense. They would have to merge into one. This actually connects to God--there can't be two Gods just like there can't be two consciousnesses. Anyways, you're pretty stuck in the rationalist paradigm and I would recommend rewatching the Deconstructing Rationality series. Just some tough love

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. That's not what I'm doing. To be clear, I don't "believe in" solipsism or anything else Leo says. But I recognize that solipsism definitely has something to it. The simplicity is striking, and most objections to it are based on it sounding crazy.

This is just wrong. Solipsism is the simplest explanation of reality. Standard idealism faces the challenge of how a bunch of consciousnesses that are separate can somehow come together (since the universe is consciousness). Solipsism actually has no such challenges-- the only challenge is incredulity. Also, you didn't really consider my point about explaining structure. Any worldview will struggle to explain why reality is structured exactly as it is on the micro-level. I'll walk back the original comment a little bit. The point was that truth comes before any implications or consequences in epistemic priority. But yes, it's true that you have to have epistemic standards. The only caveat is that these standards might be totally different for absolute matters (such as solipsism) than for relative matters.

You seem to be confusing the contents of the dream for the broader context. The broader context in solipsism is that it’s all your mind; for physicalism, it’s that it’s all physical stuff. Neither one really explains the things you mentioned. Physicalism seems to do so based on simplistic causal explanations, but it still leaves unanswered “why am I here?” If you’re asking “Why did I spawn into this specific dream?”, that’s a deep question and I don’t know the answer… not sure if Leo does either. It could be something to investigate, if you’re open to it.

The thing about solipsism is that it actually requires zero assumptions. That’s only hard to realize if you’re entrenched in the materialist paradigm. Also, brute facts is a notion that needs to be deconstructed. The absolute is a “brute fact” in the sense that it’s foundational and has no explanation besides itself, but this notion of brute fact is a very rich one—might I say, an infinitely rich one. When academics talk about brute fact, they don’t actually know what they’re talking about. A true brute fact is one of a kind, and it is the existence of EVERYTHING.

I think there’s a common core realization. Even if Leo and Ralston disagree on love, they still agree on the absolute. You’re treating the absolute as if it’s just some fancy notion without explanatory power. That’s a typical rationalist mistake—to dismiss a higher view because it doesn’t mesh with the rationalist paradigm. Yes, it’s true that the absolute doesn’t meet the scientific/logical/philosophical standards for a strong view, but maybe the standards are wrong.